The aim of the thesis is to give an assessment of the evolution of space systems and to examine the privatization of these systems. Understanding spaceport infrastructure is imperative, and by overlooking a key component of privatizing space systems, policymakers are at a disadvantage by not looking in the right place. The policy initiatives of the FAA, Department of Defense (DOD), and NASA are important to analyze in relation to understanding the mechanics of commercial space systems policy development.
Kennedy in the 1960s led to Project Apollo, the signing of the UN "Outer Space Treaty" and eventually landing an American on the moon. Finally, I look at the life of the ISS beginning in 2000 when the first crew took up residence to the current commercialized space race with joint ventures such as United Launch Alliance and. In chapter three, I present background research on the government's use of privatization as a policy tool.
News of the Wright Brothers' successful experiment sparked a nationwide fascination with the airplane, fueled by the St. This growing competition led both wealthy investors and the federal government to understand the importance of the role the powered aircraft could play in the fight against the plane. American society. The first federal official to take a keen interest in the aircraft's capabilities was then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt.
The reason was that the federal government continued to experiment with the balloon as well as the discovery of the pressurized cabin at the 1933 Chicago World's Fair (Spitzmiller, 2017).
Origins of the Space Race (1940s-1960s)
Von Braun was a founding member of the Society for Space Travel, a group of German scientists who conducted research and published papers that would later be crucial to the foundation of modern rocket and satellite technology, and were. The History of ICAO...) These standards and practices were one that pioneers such as General Charles Yeager of the US Air Force had to adhere to, yet were able to break scientific barriers. Not to be confused with National Geographic Explorer I, the purpose of America's Explorer 1 was to "detect the amount of cosmic rays outside the Earth's atmosphere theorized by Dr.
James Van Allen of the University of Iowa.” (Loff, 2016, p. 1) Although the Explorer 1 was not the first satellite in space, Van Allen's findings led to the discovery of the. A direct result of the political competition between the United States and the Soviet Union was the passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, a bill signed by President Dwight Eisenhower that established NASA as the governing body over space-related activities, while it ensured that space activities would be completed in a peaceful manner. This bill also created the National Aeronautics and Space Council (NASC), giving the President of the United States, not the Administrator of NASA, the ability to set NASA's agenda and oversee all activities that have taken place, something that can be seen as a measure of.
This statement is politically vague for reasons represented by the fact that if an international treaty did not favor the progress of the United States over that of the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower did not desire the political response that would result from Congress. and the American public. Although the United States had not quite sent someone to the moon, in February John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth aboard the Atlas 6 rocket's Friendship 7. The data collected during this mission gave “NASA the opportunity to build the first Zero Gravity Facility in the United States in 1966.
The Skylab and International Space Station (1970s-2010s)
In the 1990s, "air propulsion, space power, and space propulsion came to the fore, ultimately leading to the development of the International Space Station." The Code will benefit the competitiveness of the United States in the international space transportation industry; and the responsibilities of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation have increased significantly as the commercial space transportation industry has expanded rapidly.” To understand the policy landscape that both private companies and federal agencies must recognize, it is important to highlight Title 51 of the US Code and what is its relationship to space systems and spaceports.
In order for this to happen, it would be in the best interest of policymakers to promote an open competition, public-private partnership agenda regarding the construction and maintenance of space systems, while maintaining public control of spaceports. It would be more beneficial for the federal government to retain control of spaceports, whether they are launch sites at Cape Canaveral, Florida or module docking stations on the International Space Station (ISS). The need for continued public support for the construction and maintenance of spaceports is related to the fact that commercial space travel is in its infancy and.
While full public ownership of spaceports is necessary due to the current state of commercial space travel, it could become ethically, economically, and politically problematic. The section of Title 51 of the US Code that I would recommend for revision would be Section 50901. This simple revision would ensure that the public sector retains control of spaceports and that the construction and maintenance of space systems remain under public-private partnership contracts.
The reason these policy revisions are needed is to ensure that the federal government retains control of the spaceports to ensure that private companies don't cut corners and put astronauts' lives at risk. The lack of regulation on spaceports is surprising given the continued regulation of airports and the infancy in technology and economic viability of the commercial space travel market. In the beginning of this policy action, I realistically believe that private companies will be inclined to build their rockets outside the United States because the government will charge a fee for the use of the facility.
Ultimately, I would like to see the state of the spaceports be a short-term transition from full public ownership to the use of contracts between the private and public sectors regarding spaceport maintenance, similar to the infrastructure plans that Florida and Virginia are pursuing in the 2000s coined (Zimmer, 2010). While a transition from full public ownership to the use of public-private contracts for spaceport ownership would be an adequate policy initiative, it would best serve the federal government's interests if it allowed private companies to participate in a open competitive market for the construction and maintenance of the space systems that One of the major government contracts that could serve as a model for this is Boeing and NASA's current public-private partnership with NASA's Space Launch System.
To make the most of the resources on offer, it would be in the best interest of the United States to establish a public-private partnership for asteroid mining that would allow private contractors to go into space, mine the asteroids and then the federal government and private. Using background research on space systems development and then privatization research using a political tool, I came to the conclusion that an open competition, public-private partnership policy would be the most beneficial for space systems, while full public ownership of spaceports would be would also be the best direction for the government. National Museum of the US Air Force™, United States Air Force, 9 Apr. 2015, www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-.
Introducing Competitiveness for Commercial Spaces Act of 2015: report of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transport on S.
